'  \ 


^/jLo.'O'L 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


%. 


Presented    b^^ro-  ~S~S) . \}'^  Cr.r\\  <Sj  \ Q  ,":i) ."D . 


Di7)ision  ... 


C^ 


Section  <?S  .  T   ^^    / 


II.  A  KECENTLY  PROPOSED  TEST  OF  CANONICITV.' 

The  work  of  the  occupant  of  the  chair  of  Biblical  Literature  is 
in  some  respects  an  exceedingly  humble  one.  It  is  that  <>f  "a 
hewer  of  wood  and  drawer  of  water"  for  the  chair  ot"  thcitlogy. 
But  its  importance  is  none  the  less  on  that  account,  for  even  the 
"queen  of  the  sciences"  owes  her  crown,  her  sceptre,  and  her 
throne,  to  this  "power  behind  the  throne."  For  it  deals  with 
the  questions  that  lie  at  the  foundation,  as  it  were,  of  our  system 
of  church  government,  at  the  foundation  of  our  system  of  doc- 
trine; yes,  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  Christian  religion.  That 
this  is  not  the  language  of  exaggeration  is  clear  from  the  fact  that 
"the  Bible,"  according  to  the  famous  saying  of  Chillingworth,  "is 
the  religion  of  Protestants,"  and  Biblical  Literature  deals  directly 
with  the  Bible.  It  examines  its  claims  to  be  a  revelation  from 
God;  fixes  the  elements  of  which  it  is  composed;  traces  the  his- 
tory of  its  human  origin,  its  preservation  and  its  circulation ;  and, 
to  pass  by  other  points,  undertakes  to  determine  the  meaning  of 
its  contents.  The  occupant  of  this  chair  thus,  as  it  were,  searches 
out,  quarries  and  chisels  into  shape  the  stones  out  of  whii-ii  the 
tem})le  of  the  Christian  system  is  erecttcd. 

Hence  the  vast  inherent  responsibility  attaching  to  the  duties 
of  this  department.  But  if  the  inherent  responsibilities  are  them- 
selves great,  they  are  greatly  enhanced  by  the  present  trend  of 
theological  discussion.  One  needs  scarcely  to  i)c  reminded  that 
the  Bible  itself,  rather  than  this  oi-  that  particular  bildical  doc- 
trine, or  system  of  doctrine,  is  the  centre  around  which  the  theo- 
logical thought  of  the  day  revolves.  We  have  seen  the  claims  of 
almost  every  book  of  Scripture  challenged,  and  its  historic  origin 
questioned  to  a  greater  or  less  extent.  Not  only  liavc  we  seen 
the  canonical  authority  of  individual  books  discussed,  but  we  have 

'  Inftugnriil  nildress  by  W.  M.  flld'hoctere,  D.  D.,  on  tho  oocnaion  of  bis  iiistnlla- 
tion  fts  Professor  of  Biblical  Liternturo  iu  the  Theoh)(,'ical  Scmiuary  nt  Coliiiiibift^ 
S.  C,  Miiy,  1890. 
3 


34:  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

witnessed  the  reopening  of  such  questions  as  tliese :  What  are  the 
essential  elements  of  canonicity?  And  again,  What  is  the  ulti- 
mate test  of  canonicity? 

The  last  of  these  questions  is  so  fundamental  in  its  character, 
of  so  great  intrinsic  importance,  and  withal  one  rendered  so  promi- 
nent by  recent  discussion,  that  I  hope  it  may  furnish  an  appropriate 
and  interesting  theme  for  this  occasion. 

The  theme,  therefore,  to  which,  without  further  delay,  I  invite 
attention  is:  A  Recently  Proposed  Test  of  Canonicity. 

Before  proceeding  to  discuss  it,  I  may  be  permitted  to  recall 
a  few  definitions  which  are  familiar  to  many  of  you,  but  may 
be  serviceable  to  some  others.  First,  the  term  "canon"  meant 
originally  a  "reed."  B}'  an  easy  transition  it  came  to  mean  a 
"measuring-rod;"  by  another,  equally  easy,  it  came  to  mean  a 
"  rule."  Finally,  it  was  to  be  applied  to  those  writings  which  God 
has  given  to  be  a  rule  of  faith  and  life  to  his  people.  In  this  sense 
it  will  be  used  in  the  following  discussion.  Canon,  then,  as  thus 
defined,  is  synonymous  with  the  more  familiar  term.  Scripture. 
To  say,  therefore,  that  a  book  is  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  canon 
is  equivalent  to  saying  that  it  is  entitled  to  a  place  in  Scrip- 
ture. 

Closely  connected  with  the  term  canon  are  two  others,  which, 
as  they  will  occur  frequently,  may  as  well  be  defined  here.  They 
are  canomcity  and  canonical.  By  the  former,  or  canonicity,  is  meant 
that  quality  or  characteristic  of  a  writing  which  invests  it  with 
authority  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  life.  And  by  canonical,  the  ad- 
jective, is  meant  the  possession  of  canonicity,  or  of  a  right  to  a 
place  in  the  canon. 

It  will  be  well,  further,  at  this  point  to  fix  attention  upon  the 
precise  nature  of  the  question  to  he  considered.  The  question, 
then,  is  not,  what^are^  the  elements  of  canonicity  ?  but,  what  are  the 
evidences  that  a  writing  claiming  to  be  canonical  does  indeed  pos- 
sess tliat  quality  or  those  qualities  wliich  constitute  it  a  rule  of 
faith  and  life  ?  We  do  not  inquire  at  present  what  quality  it  is 
that  invests  a  writing  with  this  peculiar  dignity  and  supreme 
authority,  l)ut  how  can  the  claims  of  a  writing  to  the  possession 
^of  this  quality  be  tested?     To  discuss  the  question,  what  are  the 


A  RECENTLY  PROPOSED  TEST  OF  CANONIOITY.  35 

essential  elements  of  canonicity  ?  would  consume  time  needlessly, 
and  would  divert  attention  from  the  single  issue  now  to  be  con- 
sidered. It  is  admitted,  then,  at  least  so  far  as  the  present  argu- 
ment is  concerned,  that  inspiration  is  the  essential  element  of 
canouicity.  It  is  admitted  that  it  is  the  fact  that  a  writing  is  in- 
spired that  constitutes  it  a  rule  of  faith  and  life.  And  the  simple 
issue  before  us  is,  How  can  we  assure  ourselves  that  a  given  writ- 
ing claiming  canonical  authority  is  inspired?  What  are  the  evi- 
dences of  the  inspiration  of  a  book  ?  Or,  to  state  the  case  in  con- 
crete form,  upon  what  grounds  do  we  admit  the  inspiration  of 
Eccleaiastea,  and  deny  the  inspiration  of  Ecclesiastic  us  ? 

Numerous  answers  have  been  returned  to  this  question.  They 
may  all,  however,  for  present  purposes,  be  reduced  to  three. 

The  first  is  tliat  of  the  Romish  church.  It  has  been  stated 
thus  by  Dr.  Lynch,  a  former  Roman  Catholic  bishop  of  Charles- 
ton :  •'  God  has  ordained  that  each  Christian  shall  learn  what  books 
are  inspired  from  a  body  of  individuals,  to  whom,  in  their  collec- 
tive capacity,  ho  has  given  authority  to  make  an  unerring  decision 
on  that  point."  Stated  in  different  terms  his  answer  comes  to  this: 
The  Christian  is  obliged  to  recognize  the  canonical  authority  of 
a  certain  writing  because  the  (Romish)  church  says  it  is  inspired. 
According  to  this  view,  then,  the  possession  oi  proper  ecclesiastical 
sanction  is  the  ultimate  test  of  canonicity.  The  books  which  have 
received  such  sanction  are  thereby  invested  witli  canonical  author- 
ity. And  to  prove,  in  reference  to  any  book,  that  it  has  received 
the  official  sanction  of  the  (Romish)  church  is  to  establish  its  ca- 
nonicity. This,  however,  only  pushes  our  question  one  step  further 
back.  For  we  instinctively  inquire:  How  does  the  church  know 
that  a  given  writing  is  inspired  ?  The  answer  returned  to  tills  query 
is  that,  as  God  has  given  her  "authority  to  make  an  unerring  deci- 
sion on  tlie  point,"  so  he  likewise  gives  lier  that  illumination  and 
special  guidance  of  his  Spirit  that  enables  her  io  render  such  a 
decision.  In  a  word,  the  answer  virtually  given  is :  "  Tlie  churoh  is 
inspired."  Now,  a  pertinacious  Protestant  would  be  likely  to  press 
his  inquiry  by  asking,  "How  nmy  I  know  tiiat  the  church  is  in- 
spired ?  It  cannot  be  because  the  Bible  says  so,  for  on  this  theory 
I  have  none  until  she  gives  it  to  me,  and  I  cannot  receive  it  froua 


/, 


36  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

her  unless  assured  that  she  is  herself  inspired.  How,  then,  may  I 
know  that  sndi  is  the  case?"  But  as  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  dis- 
cuss Rome's  test  of  canonicity,  I  will  dismiss  it  with  the  single  re- 
mark, tliat  she  has  always  found  it  more  convenient  to  gag  than  to 
answer  those  w^ho  have  called  in  question  her  baseless  and  blas- 
phemous pretensions. 

The  next  answer  that  we  may  profitably  notice  is  that  of  a 
long  line  of  Protestant  apologists  and  theologians.  I  cannot  do 
better  than  to  give  it  in  the  very  words  of  one  among  tlie  most 
illustrious  of  them  all.  I  refer  to  the  sainted  and  gifted  Thorn- 
well.     He  says : 

"  It  is  a  favorite  scheme  of  ttie  papists  to  represent  tlie  settling  of  the  canon  as 
a  work  of  gigantic  toil  and  formidable  mystery.  It  evidently,  however,  reduces 
itself  to  a  simple  question  of  fact :  What  books  were  written  by  men  whose  claims 
to  inspiration  were  either  directly  or  remotely  established  by  miracles  ?  It  is  a 
question,  therefore,  of  no  more  difficulty  than  the  authenticity  of  the  sacred  books. 
To  illustrate  the  matter  in  the  case  of  the  New  Testament :  the  churches  that  re- 
ceived the  Epistles  from  Paul  could  have  had  no  doabt  of  their  canonical  authority, 
because  they  knew  that  the  apostle  was  supernaturally  inspired  as  a  teacher  of  the 
faith.  He  produced  in  abundance  the  signs  of  an  ajjostle.  So  also  the  writings 
of  the  other  apostles  would  be  recognized  by  their  contemporary  brethren  as  the 
word  of  the  Lord.  The  books  actually  written  by  the  apostles,  or  approved  by 
their  sanction,  would  be  known  by  living  witnesses  to  the  fact.  The  historical 
proofs  of  this  fact — that  is,  the  testimony  of  credible  witnesses — would  be  suf- 
ficient in  all  future  time  to  attest  the  iusiDiration  of  any  given  work.  If  a  man,  for 
example,  in  the  third  century  is  doubtful  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  all  that  is 
necessary  to  settle  his  mind  is  to  convince  him  that  Paid  actually  wrote  it.  This 
being  done,  its  insj^iratiou  follows  as  a  matter  of  course." 

Such  is  Dr.  Thornweirs  admiral)ly  clear  and  strong  statement 
of  tlie  case  from  the  ordinary  standpoint  of  Protestants.  Similar 
language  might  be  cited,  were  it  necessary,  from  the  writings  of 
Paley  and  Cosin,  the  Alexanders  and  the  Hodges. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  now  to  show  the  correctness  of  this 
answer.  Let  it  sutJice  to  emphasize  the  following  points:  First, 
according  to  this  view  the  questions  of  origin  and  canonicity_are 
inseparal)le.  To  prove  the  canonical  autiiority  of  a  writing  we 
must  be  able  to  trace  it  to  men  "  whose  claims  to  inspiration  were 
either  directly  or  remotely  established  by  miracles."  And  con- 
versely, to  trace  a  writing  to  such  a  source  is  to  prove  its  canon- 
icity.    So  that  the  ultimate  test  of  canonicity,  ac(;ording  to  this 


A  RECENTLY  PROPOSED  TEST  OF  CANONICITY.  37 

view,  is  not  ecdesiastical  sanction,  but  ((postol.lc  orif/i/i  or  sanclion. 
Secondly,  it  is  important  to  note  that  it  follows,  from  what  lias  2- 

been  said,  that  the  question  of  the  canonicitj  of  a  writing  is  purely 
a  historical  question,  to  be  settled  by  historical  evidence.     Third,  -^ 

it  is  fair  to  say  by  way  of  caution,  that  those  who  hold  this  view  • 

do  not  ignore  the  evidences  of  inspiration  furnished  by  the  con- 
tents of  a  writing,  nor  do  they  ignore  the  testimony  which  the 
Holy  Spirit  bears  in  the  hearts  of  believers  to  the  infallible  truth 
and  divine  authority  of  Scripture.     On  the  contrary,  they  regard 
both  of  tliesc  as  iiuportant  independent  lines  of  corroborative  tea-       njiMu,  > 
tinioiiy,  calculated  greatly  to  confirm  the  conviction  produced  by    ^^^tJ^U^^-^ 
the  historical  evidence,  and  in  connection  with  it  to  beget  a  "full  c^vU--^  A- 
persuasion"  of  the  canonical  authority  of  a  writing.    But  for  valid    i^-iW^x 
reasons,  as  might  be  shown  did  time  permit,  they  decline  to  find,   /Uy/O^ 
either  in  the  contents  of  a  writing  or  in  any  subjective  impres-     ^    ' 
sions  in  reference  to  it,  the  ultimate  test  of  its  canonicity.     And,      ;, 
not  to  dwell  too  long  upon  this  tiieory,  it  is  proper  to  observe,  ^ 

in  the  fourth  place,  the  contrast  between  this  view  and  that  of  ^• 
Rome.  The  two  have  recently  been  declared  to  be  identical ;  but 
in  reality  they  are  wide  apart  as  the  poles.  There  is  a  sense  in 
which  i)oth  may  be  said  to  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  the  church, 
though  this  language,  which  is  ambiguous  and  misleading,  should 
be  avoided.  But  how  different  is  the  nature  of  the  appeal  in  the 
two  cases.  Romanists  appeal  to  the  church  in  her  organized  and 
official  capacity.  Protestants  appeal  to  the  individuals  who  com- 
pose the  church,  and  appeal  to  them,  not  for  their  official  sanction, 
but  for  information  upon  a  simple  question  of  fact.  Romanists 
appeal  to  the  church  as  a  judge  whose  decision  is  final.  Protest- 
ants appeal  to  her  members  as  credible  witnesses.  Romanists  ap- 
peal to  her  for  an  authoritative  decision  upon  a  question  which 
they  are  unal)le  or  indisposed  to  examine  for  themselves.  Pro- 
testants appeal  to  her  members  for  evidence,  whicli  they  weigh  as 
they  would  any  other  evidence.  According  to  the  Romish  view, 
the  church  collects  the  evidence  and  passes  upon  it,  and  declares 
her  judgment  in  tlu^  premises,  from  wiiich  judgment  there  is  no 
appeal.  According  to  the  Protestant  view,  the  persons  who  com- 
pose the  church  may  collect  the  testimony  and  perpetuate  it  from 


38  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

generation  to  generation,  but  each  individual  may  and  should  pass 
upon  it  for  himself.  To  fail  to  see  this  distinction  does  not  speak 
well  for  one's  mental  acumen.  To  deny  its  existence  argues  ''in- 
vincible ignorance." 

There  is  a  third  answer  to  the  question,  What  is  the  ultimate 
test  of  canonicity  ?  to  the  consideration  of  which  the  remainder  of 
this  paper  will  be  devoted.  The  reasons  for  singling  out  this  third 
answer  for  special  examination  are  several.  First,  There  is  at  pres- 
ent an  effort  being  made  in  high  quarters  to  give  it  wide-spread 
currency.  Second,  It  is  not  only  intrinsically  false,  but  is  based 
I  upon  principles  which,  if  admitted,  must  be  fatal  to  the  Christian 
'system.  It  looks  like  an  attempt  to  derationalize  religion  in  order 
to  make  room  for  rationalism.  It  gilds  the  spire  of  the  Christian 
1  temple  with  a  false  glory,  to  dazzle  the  eyes,  and  to  distract  the  atten- 
'tion  from  the  fact  that  it  is  busy  sapping  its  foundations.  Third, 
This  theory,  tliough  false,  is  specious.  It  seeks  to  adorn  itself  with 
a  show  of  humility,  which  is  exceedingly  fascinating.  Then,  too, 
it  looks  like  reverence  personified.  Finally:  It  is,  let  us  not  say 
boastful  and  arrogant,  but  lofty  in  its  claims.  Probal>ly  it  would 
be  as  well  just  here  to  state  what  these  claims  are. 

It  claims,  then,  to  represent  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformers  and 
Puritans.  It  claims  the  sanction  of  the  Westminster  Confession. 
It  claims  to  be  the  doctrine  of  many  of  the  most  gifted  and  godly 
modern  scholars,  such  as  Neander,  Tholuck,  Mtiller  and  Dorner. 
It  claims  to  furnish  the  only  sure  basis  for  certitude  in  regard  to 
the  canon.  It  claims  to  put  the  humblest  Christian  above  the  need 
of  a  "mediating  priesthood  of  theologians,"  above  the  need  of  any 
help  from  apologetics  and  polemics,  above  the  reach  of  all  cavils, 
and  I  suppose  one  might  add,  above  tlie  need  of  all  church  history. 
It  claims  as  a  peculiar  merit  that,  while  it  enables  the  humblest 
Christian  to  rest  in  the  sweet  assurance  that  he  possesses  the  trnth 
of  God,  it  also  enables  the  higher  critic  to  go  on  in  his  destructive 
and  constructive  work  with  the  comfortable  reflection  tliat  under 
its  aegis  there  will  be  none  to  molest  or  make  him  afraid.  It 
claims  that  it  alone  prevents  the  reason,  the  conscience  and  the  re- 
ligious feeling  from  being  forced  into  conflict  one  with  another, 
and  one  or  all  with  the  Spirit  of  God.     It  claims  to  render  the 


A  RECENTLY  PKOPOSEI)  TEST  OF  CANONKMTV.  39 

reason,  conscience  and  religious  feeling  independent  of  "  the  exter- 
nal authority  of  scholars  and  schools,  of  church  or  state,  of  tradi- 
tion or  human  testimony,  however  extensive," '  with  which  it  as- 
serts they  can  never  be  satisfied,  and  to  furnish  them  a  divine  au- 
thority upon  which  to  rest.  It  claims  that  it  alone  secures  t<>  the 
individual  Christian  the  inalienable  and  inestimable  right  of  private 
judgment,  not  only  as  regards  the  several  doctrines  of  our  faith, 
but  also  as  regards  the  source  of  these  doctrines.  This  it  does  l)y 
encouraging  and  enabling  every  Christian  to  make  iiis  own  Bible. 
These  are  unquestionably  lofty  claims,  and  may  well  arrest  our 
attention  upon  the  theory  in  belialf  of  which  they  are  made.  Let 
us  then  proceed  to  examine  it.  I  will  give  it  in  the  words  of  one 
of  its  latest  and  ablest  advocates.  Dr.  C.  A.  Briggs: 

"The  principles  on  which  the  canon  of  Scripture  is  to  be  determined  are, 
therefore,  these:  (1,)  The  testimony  of  the  church,  going  back  by  tradition  and 
written  documents  to  primitive  times,  presents  probable  evidence  to  all  men  that 
the  Scriptures,  recognized  as  of  divine  authority  and  canonical  by  such  consent, 
are  indeed  what  they  are  claimed  to  be. 

"  (2,)  The  Scriptures  themselves,  in  their  pure  and  holy  character  satisfying  the 
conscience;  their  beauty,  majesty  and  harmony  satisfying  the  a-sthctic  taste;  thoir 
simplicity  and  fidelity  to  truth,  together  with  their  exalted  conceptions  of  man,  of 
God  and  of  history,  satisfying  the  reason  and  the  intellect ;  their  piety  and  devo- 
tion to  the  one  God,  and  their  revelation  of  redemption,  satisfying  the  religious  feel- 
ings and  deepest  needs  of  mankind— all  conspire  to  convince  more  and  more  that 
they  are  indeed  sacred  and  divine  books. 

"(3,)  The  Spirit  of  God  bears  witness  by  and  with  the  particular  writing,  or  part 
of  ^\Titing,  in  the  heart  of  the  believer,  removing  every  doubt,  an<l  a-ssuring  the  soul 
of  its  possession  of  the  truth  of  God,  the  rule  and  guide  of  life 

"Thus  the  human  testimony,  the  external  evidence,  attains  its  furthest  iK)88ible 
limit  as  probable  evidence,  bringing  the  inquirer  to  the  Scriptures  with  a  high  and 
reverent  esteem  of  them,  when  the  internal  evidence  exerts  its  powerful  inlluence 
upon  his  soul,  and  at  length  the  divine  testimony  lays  hold  of  his  entire  nature,  and 
convinces  and  assures  him  of  the  truth  of  God,  and  causes  him  to  share  in  the  con- 
sensus of  the  Christian  church. "  ' 

Such  is  the  theory  we  arc  now  briefly  to  examine.  One  could 
wish  that  it  furnished  less  to  support  tiie  sneer  of  tlie  distiugui.shed 
French  diplomatist  who  said  that  language  i.s  designed  to  conceal 
our  thoughts.  How  mucli  would  it  aid  us  in  forming  a  judgment 
of  this  theory  had  the  writer  just  quoted  stated  "in  a  few  plain 

'  Briggp'  Bihlirtd  Study,  p.  i:»8.  •'  /W-/.,  pi'.  i:«"',  i:»7. 


40  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

words"  what  ho  has  hidden  under  many  cloudy  sentences.  As  it 
is,  we  must  carefully  and  patiently  thread  our  way  through  a  maze. 
Still  we  need  not  despair  of  finding  the  clue  to  this  laliyrinth.  For- 
tunately, what  is  dark  or  obscure  in  the  above  statement  may  be  so 
illuminated  and  explained  by  other  statements  from  the  same  pen  as 
to  enable  us  to  fix  with  certainty  the  essential  features  of  the  theory. 

First,  then,  let  it  be  observed  that  this  theory  reduces  the  evi- 
dence for  the  canonicity  of  any  writing  to  three  heads,  namely, 
that  furnished  by  "  the  testimony  of  the  church ;"  that  furnished 
by  the  contents  of  the  writing  itself;  and  that  furnished  by  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

It  will  simplify  our  investigation  to  dismiss  at  once  from  con- 
sideration all  that  is  so  truly  and  eloquently  said  about  the  evidence 
which  the  character  of  the  contents  may  furnish  for  the  canonicity 
of  a  writing.  We  may  dismiss  this  because  it  presents  a  view  not 
peculiar  to  this  theory,  but  common  to  it  and  to  that  advocated  by 
Drs.  Thorn  well  and  Alexander.  In  a  word,  it  is  admitted  on  all 
hands  that  this  kind  of  evidence  is  at  best  only  corroborative.  It 
may  deepen,  but  it  cannot  of  itself  ground  a  conviction  of  the  ca- 
nonicity of  a  book. 

It  only  remains,  then,  to  consider  the  "  testimony  of  the  church" 
and  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit.  Here  we  may  very  properly  in- 
quire into  the  meaning  of  the  terms  employed,  and  also  into  the 
relative  weight  ascribed  to  each  kind  of  testimony. 

Let  us  turn,  therefore,  and  examine  what  is  meant  by  "the 
testimony  of  the  church,"  and  what  is  said  of  it. 

Now,  as  soon  as  we  begin  to  try  to  fix  the  meaning  of  the  ex- 
pression "the  testimony  of  the  cluirch,"  we  find  that  the  words  are 
beset  with  an  ambiguity  which  makes  the  use  of  them  in  the  state- 
ment under  consideration  scarcely  less  than  criminal.  The  gravity 
of  the  offence  is  not  at  all  diminished  by  the  fact  that  the  expres- 
sion seems  to  be  borrowed  from  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  appar- 
ently professes  in  this  connection  to  echo  the  sentiments  of  that 
venerable  document.  If  we  attend  merely  to  the  sound  of  the 
words  and  their  meaning  as  used  in  the  Confession,  we  would 
not  uimaturally  suppose  that  the  phrase,  "the  testimony  of  the 
church,"  referred   to  the   consensus  of  opinion   existing  among 


A  RECENTLY  PROPOSED  TEST  OF   CANONICITY.  4rl 

•ecclesiastical  persons,  or  to  the  consensus  of  the  official  decisions 
of  ecclesiastical  courts  and  councils.  But  the  sound  hero  is  evi- 
dently misleading.  This  phrase,  as  used  in  the  passage  cited  above, 
was  designed,  as  will  appear  when  we  examine  it  in  the  light  of 
other  statements  from  the  same  pen,  to  include  all  historical  evi- 
dence coming  to  us  through  ecclesiastical  channels.  Things  so 
different  should  not  be  confounded.  An  opinion  is  one  thing, 
evidence  is  another  and  quite  a  different  thing.  The  former  is 
the  answer  to  the  question,  What  do  you  think,?  The  latter  to 
the  question.  What  do  you  knoiv  f  When  we  ask  for  the  opinion 
of  another  with  a  view  to  making  that  a  rule  of  conduct  for  our- 
selves, we  virtually  hold  our  own  judgment  in  abeyance  and  act 
upon  that  of  another.  When  we  ask  for  evidence,  it  is  with  a  view 
to  forming  an  intelligent  and  independent  opinion  for  ourselves. 
To  turn  to  ecclesiastical  persons  or  councils  for  their  opinion 
might  look  like  we  stood  at  their  bar  and  recognized  in  them  some 
right  to  impose  their  opinions  upon  us.  But  to  collect  the  evidence 
furnished  by  ecclesiastical  persons  or  councils  is  to  seat  ourselves 
upon  the  judgment  seat  and  call  them  before  our  bar  to  be  ex- 
amined and  cross-examined  as  witnesses.  To  be  controlled  by  the 
opinions  of  ecclesiastical  persons  or  councils,  no  matter  how  per- 
fect the  unanimity  or  how  great  the  antiquity  of  such  opinions, 
might  squint  towards  a  surrender  of  tlie  right  of  private  judgment; 
but  to  demand  evidence  is  usually  and  properly  regarded  as  an  as- 
sertion of  this  valued  right.  I  say  again,  then,  that  things  so  dif- 
ferent as  a  mere  conseiisiis  of  opinion  and  historical  evidence  ought 
not  to  have  been  confounded.  If  one  did  not  feel  that  the  distinc- 
tion between  them  was  too  important  to  have  been  intentionally 
obscured,  he  would  be  apt  to  say  that  it  is  too  palpaljle  to  luive 
been  unintentionally  obscured.  However  this  may  be,  the  fact  is 
that  it  has  been  obscured.  Hence  the  importance  of  noticing 
the  fact  that  the  phrase,  '"tlie  testimony  of  the  church,"  as  used 
by  Dr.  Briggs,  covers  and  was  designed  to  cover  all  historical 
evidence  coining/  to  us  through  eccle,siasticul  channels.  It  would 
have  been  clearer,  then,  had  the  paragraph  (pioted  read:  His- 
torical evidence,  "going  back  by  tradition  and  written  documents 
to  primitive  times,  presents  probable"  proof  "to  all  men  that  the 


42  THE  PKESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

Scriptures"  are  "of  divine  anthority  and  canonical."     For,  as  we 
will  see,  this  is  the  real  position  of  this  theoi-y. 
.  The  next  point  in  this  connection  is  the  weight  allowed  in  thi& 

^T;       statement  to  historical  testimony.     It  is  said  to  furnish  '■^ pi'ohcihle^ 
^'■'"^  \   evidence"  of  canonicity,  nothing   more.      This  is  not  only  the 
furthest  actual,  but  the  "  furthest  possible  limit "  to  which  "  human 
,■     testimony"  can  attain.     It  may  confirm  us  in  convictions  other- 
:'  wise  produced,  but  it  is  in  itself  powerless  to  produce  conviction. 
•^    If  left  to  this  we  could  not  be  sure  of  the  canonicity  of  a  single 
L  JMh^  ^ok  in  the  Bible. 

^  o^^ .  rjij^.g  |g  surely  a  startling  position.  It  simply  amounts  to  this, 
that  no  line  of  historical  evidence,  however  complete,  can  establish 
the  canonicity  of  a  writing.  It  may  extend  back  to  the  times  of 
the  apostles,  it  may  connect  a  writing  with  one  of  these  authorized 
and  inspired  founders  and  expounders  of  the  Christian  system, 
but  it  will  be  of  no  avail  so  far  as  establishing  its  claim  to  be  a 
rule  of  faith  and  life.  It  follows  from  this  that  the  questions  of 
canonicity  and  authorship  are  not  only  distinct,  but  wholly  dis- 
severed from  each  other.  To  prove  that  a  given  writing  is  the 
official  production  of  an  inspired  man  does  not  prove  that  it  is  in- 
'  spired  and  canonical. 

If  any  one  questions  the  correctness  of  this  construction  put 
upon  the  language  we  have  been  passing  under  review,  it  can  be 
abundantly  confirmed.  Thus  Dr.  B,  B.  Warfield  says:  "It  is  also 
clear  that  prophetic  and  apostolic  origin  is  the  very  essence  of  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures."^  Upon  which  the  writer  before 
quoted  comments  as  follows :  "  If  this  is  the  '  very  essence  of  the 
authority  of  the  Scripture,'  that  essence  is  not  strong  enough  to 
sustain  the  strain  of  criticism,  and  to  bear  the  weight  of  a  world 
demanding  infallible  evidence  for  its  faith." ^  Now  this  criticism 
is  equivalent  to  a  strong  denial  of  the  assertion  that  "prophetic 
and  apostolic  origin  is  the  very  essence  of  "  canonicity. 
Again,  Dr.  Alexander  says: 

"As  to  the  proper  method  of  setthng  the  cauou  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
same  course  must  be  pursued  as  was  done  in  respect  to  the  Old.     We  must  have 

'  Presbyterian  Review,  Vol.  X.,  p.  506,  quoted  in  Whitlier,  p.  87. 
2  Whither,  p.  87. 


A  RECENTLY  PROPOSED  TEST  OF  CANONICITY.  43 

recourse  to  autheutic  history,  and  endeavor  to  ascertain  what  books  were  received 
as  genuine  by  the  primitive  church  and  early  fathers.  The  contemi)orarie8  aad 
immediate  successors  of  the  apostles  are  the  most  competent  witnesses  in  this  case. 
If  among  them  there  is  found  to  have  been  a  general  agreement  as  to  what  books 
•were  canonical,  it  will  go  far  to  satisfy  us  respecting  the  true  canon,  for  it  cannot 
be  supposed  that  they  could  easily  be  deceived  in  a  matter  of  tliis  sort.  A  general 
consent  of  the  early  fathers  and  of  the  primitive  church,  therefore,  furnishes  con- 
clusive evidence  upon  this  point,  and  is  that  species  of  evidence  which  is  least  liable 
to  fallacy  or  abuse.  The  learned  Huet  has  therefore  a.ssumed  it  as  a  maxim, 
'  TJiat  every  book  is  genuine  wJdch  was  esteemed  genuine  by  Viose  who  lived  nearest  to 
the  time  when  it  was  written  and  by  the  ages  following  in  a  continued  series.' " 

It  is  not  for  me  to  pause  here  to  point  out  the  correct  inter- 
pretation of  Dr.  Alexander's  language.  Its  general  meaning  is 
manifest  and  manifestly  sound.  But  Dr.  Briggs,  commenting  on 
this,  says: 

"Dr.  A.  Alexander  tlnis  gave  himself  unreservedly  into  the  hands  of  the 
learned  Jesuit  without  seeing  the  trap  into  which  he  had  fallen.  Those  following 
him  have  all  fallen  into  the  same  error.  They  have  abandoned  the  jirinciple  of 
the  Scriptures  as  maintained  by  Luther,  Calvin,  Knox,  Cartwright,  the  Reformed 
Confessions,  and  the  Westminster  divines,  and  have  tried  to  find  the  rock  of  our 
faith  in  the  shifting  sand  of  human  tradition. " 

Without  pausing  to  bemoan  the  blindness  of  Dr.  Alexander  or 
to  admire  the  penetration  and  fairness  of  his  critic,  it  is  enougli  to 
say  that  tliis  criticism  is  tantamount  to  the  assertion  that  no  line 
of  historical  evidence,  even  though  it  reach  back  to  the  very  days 
of  the  apostles,  can  be  conclusive  as  to  the  canonicity  of  a  given 
writing.  Such  evidence,  in  the  estimation  of  our  critic,  furnishes 
no  more  stable  foundation  for  confidence  in  the  canonicity  of  a 
book  than  shifting  sand  furnishes  for  the  foundation  of  a  house. 

One  more  quotation  from  Dr.  Briggs'  own  pen.     Ho  says: 

' '  The  question  as  to  the  atithenticity  of  the  Bible  is  whether  God  is  its  author ; 
whether  it  is  inspired.  This  cannot  be  determined  by  the  higher  criticism  in  any 
way,  for  the  higher  criticism  has  only  to  do  with  humiiu  authorship,  and  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  divine  authorship,  which  is  determined  on  different  principles. " ' 

Now  it  must  follow  from  this  that  tiie  answer  to  the  (|ue8tion, 
Who  was  the  hnman  author  of  this  writing?  gives  no  light  m  to 
whether  or  not  it  is  of  canonical  autliority.  To  prove  that  the 
inspired  Apostle  Paul  was  the  author  of  the  E[)istle  to  the  Romans 

'  Biblical  Study,  p.  228. 


44  THE  PKESBVTEKIAN  QUARTKKLY. 

does  not  upon  this  theory  prove  that  Romans  is  of  "divine  authority 
and  canonicah" 

Both  of  the  points  just  made  will  stand  out  more  clearly,  if 
possil)le,  when  we  examine  the  doctrine  of  this  theory  in  regard  to 
the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  its  relations  to  the  evidences 
of  canonicity.  This  we  must  now  proceed  to  do  as  briefly  as  possible. 
In  laying  down  "the  principles  on  which  the  canon  of  Scrip- 
ture is  to  be  determined,"  Dr.  Briggs,  having  relegated  the  evidence 
for  canonicity  derived  from  the  contents  of  the  writing  and  from 
"human  testimony"  to  the  category  of  merely  "probal)le  evi- 
dence," adds:  "The  Spirit  of  God  bears  witness  by  and  with  the 
particular  writing,  or  part  of  writing,  in  the  heart  of  the  believer, 
t  removing  every  doubt  and  assuring  the  soul  of  its  possession  of 
the  truth  of  God,  the  rule  and  guide  of  life."  ^ 

One  may,  I  hope,  without  impropriety  express  the  wish  that 
there  was  a  less  manifest  ambiguity  about  these  words.  This 
would  tend  greatly  to  the  comfort  of  the  reader,  to  say  nothing 
about  the  credit  of  the  writer.  I  venture  to  offer  the  following  as 
a  just  summary  of  the  teachings  of  this  paragraph,  viz. :  It  teaches, 
(1,)  That  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  to  the  inspiration  of  a  writ- 
ing is  the  ultimate  test  of  its  canonicity;  (2,)  That  this  testimony 
is  not  outward,  in  the  form  of  miracles,  but  wholly  inward,  purely 
and  entirely  subjective ;  (3,)  That  in  the  case  of  one  and  the  same 
writing,  this  testimony  may  be  given  to  parts  of  it  and  withheld 
from  other  parts  of  it;  (4,)  That  this  testimonj^  is  invariably  lim- 
ited in  its  power  and  influence  to  single  individuals ;  (5,)  That  it 
lis  given  only  to  believers,  who  alone,  therefore,  have  sufficient  rea- 
Isons  for  accepting  the  statements' of  Scripture  as  true  and  of  bind- 
'  ing  authority — from  which  tlie  necessary  inference  is,  that  to  ex- 
pect others  who  have  no  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  divine  au- 
thority and  canonicity  of  Scripture  to  receive  and  obey  them  as  a 
rule  of  faith  and  life  would  be  not  only  most  unreasonable,  but  un- 
just; (('),)  That  this  testimony  is  delivered  '■'■by  and  with  the  particu- 
lar writing  or  part  of  writing"  that  may  be  under  consideration ;  (7,) 
That  it  is  not  only  an  ultimate,  but  also  the  sole,  test  of  canonicity. 
Such  is  the  doctrine  of  this  paragraph.     Passing  by,  for  the 

'  Biblical  Study,  p.  136. 


A  BEOENTI>Y  PKOPOSED  TEST  OF   CANONIClTT.  45 

present,  some  of  its  feutures,  we  may  embody  in  the  tollowing 
proposition  so  much  of  it  as  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  consider  at 
this  stage  of  our  discussion,  viz.,  The  ultimate,  only  and  alone  test 
of  tlie  canonicity  of  a  writing  as  a  whole,  or  any  part  tliereof,  is  that 
testimony  which  the  Holy  Spirit  may  inwardly  deliver  to  its  in- 
spiration. That  this  is  the  only  correct  interpretation  (»f  tliis  para- 
graph is  manifest,  first,  from  the  connection  in  which  it  occurs. 
The  oliject  of  the  statement  as  a  whole  is  professedly  to  lay  down 
principles  for  the  determination  of  the  canon  of  Scripture.  This 
being  true,  we  have  but  three  alternatives  among  which  to  choose: 
either  (a,)  the  writer  forgot  the  very  thing  he  started  out  to  do, 
and  has  laid  down  no  test,  which  may  be  dismissed;  or  (h,)  the 
test  laid  down  is  complex  and  not  simple,  which,  as  we  will  see,  is 
excluded  by  other  statements ;  or  (c,)  the  test  is  simple,  and  consists 
in  the  single  princij)le  just  announced.  That  the  last  is  tlie  true 
and  only  interpretation  is  manifest,  in  the  second  place,  from  what 
is  said  on  this  point  in  other  connections.  Let  the  following, 
from  among  other  statements  that  might  be  quoted,  serve  as  an 
illustration. 

Dr.  Archibald  Alexander,  with  his  usual  sobriety  and  discrim- 
ination, says:  "It  is  certain  that  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  necessary  to  produce  a  true  faith  in  the  word  of  God ;  but  to 
make  this  the  only  criterion  by  which  to  judge  of  the  canonical 
authority  of  a  book  is  certainly  liable  to  strong  obje(;tions.'"  '  Upon 
this  the  following:  comment  is  made  bv  the  writer  whose  test  of 
canonicity  we  are  examining :  "  In  this  passage  Dr.  Alexander 
throws  himself  against  the  Gallican  Confession,  as  he  acknow- 
ledges; but  he  probably  did  not  realize  that  he  was  going  against 
the  unanimous  testimou}''  of  tlie  Reformed  Confessions,  the  West- 
minster standards,  and  the  entire  body  of  Continental  Protestants 
and  British  Puritans;  and  certainly  he  did  not  apprehend  the 
peril  of  his  departure  from  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Re- 
formation."^ Now,  admitting  the  justice  of  the  concessions  so 
generously  made  here  to  Dr.  Alexander's  ignoraiu^e,  and  trying  to 
preserve  due  composure  under  the  alarming  tone  of  bravado  which 

'  Carum  of  Vie  Old  arid  New  Testaments,  pp.  114-116,  cited  in  Whitiier,  p.  78. 
^Whither,  p.  78. 


46  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

pervades  this  passage,  you  will  observe  that  this  language  is  equiv- 
alent to  a  strong  affirmation  that  "  the  only  criterion  by  which  to 
judge  of  the  canonical  authority  of  a  book"  is  the  testimony  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  its  inspiration. 

We  have  now  passed  under  a  careful  review  the  several  parts 
of  this  theory.  If  our  examination  has  been  prolonged,  it  has 
been  due  to  the  character  of  the  witness  with  whom  we  have 
had  to  deal.  He  has  shown  himself  to  be  an  apparently  reluc- 
tant witness.  A  close  cross-examination  has  been  necessary,  there- 
fore, to  compel  him  to  lay  aside  his  reluctance  and  to  testify  to 
the  real  nature  of  his  theory.  If  the  attempt  has  been  success- 
ful, two  considerations  will  go  far  to  compensate  us  for  the  time 
it  has  taken  :  First,  We  niay  feel  sure  that  our  view  of  the  theory 
is  correct,  inasmuch  as  it  has  been  derived  from  the  statements  of 

I  one  of  its  advocates;  and,  second.  We  need  not  tarry  long  upon 
its  refutation,  for  this  is  one  of  those  cases  where  a  clear  state- 

'  ment  of  a  theory  is  almost  equivalent  to  a  refutation  of  it. 

Our  examination,  then,  has  shown  that  the  leading  features  of 
this  theory  may  be  reduced  to  three.  Of  these  two  are  negative  in 
character,  and  one  positive.  The  negative  features  may  be  thus 
stated : 

1.  No  kind  or  amount  of  human  testimony  can  establish  the 
canonicity  of  a  writing. 

2.  The  inspiration  of  a  writing  would  not  be  established  even 
,  if  it  should  be  proven  to  be  the  official  production  of  an  inspired 
j  :man. 

I I  The  positive  thus :  The   ultimate,  only  and  alone  test  of  the 
'   canonicity  of  a  writing,  or  of  any  part  of  it,  is  the  testimony  of 

the  Holy  Spirit  to  its  inspiration  ;  which  testimony  is  delivered  in 
,    the  heart  of  the  believer. 

The  first  stricture  which  I  have  to  offer  upon  this  theory  is, 
that,  let  its  advocates  deny  and  attempt  to  disguise  the  fact  as  they 
may,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  this  doctrine  of  canonicity  is  lia- 
ble to  all  the  objections  of  mysticism,  and,  like  mysticism,  must 
sooner  or  later  lead  to  fanaticism.  It  is  simply  another  illustra- 
tion of  the  saying  that  extremes  meet.  Here  we  have  rationalism 
run  to  seed  in  irrationalism.     Let  us  see.     What  is  the  evidence 


A  RECENTLY  I'KOPOBED  TEST  OF  OANONICITY.  47 

of  canonicity  upon  which  we  are  invited  to  repose  cnir  ftiitli  ?  Is  it 
not,  after  all  that  can  be  said,  simply  and  solely  a  subjective  im- 
pression produced  upon  the  mind  of  tlie  inquirer?  This  subjec- 
tive impression,  it  is  true,  purports  to  be  from  the  Holy  Spirit. 
But  what  is  there  to  certify  the  inquirer  that  he  is  not  the  dupe 
of  a  heated  or  disordered  fancy,  or,  worse  still,  of  a  wicked  spirit  ? 
It  may  be  said  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  just  as  able  to  assure  indi 
viduals  now  that  he  is  speaking  to  them  as  he  was  to  do  the  same 
in  the  case  of  apostles  and  prophets.  This  is  granted.  But  how 
did  he  assure  apostles  and  prophets  that  he  spoke  to  and  by  tliem? 
Was  not  the  internal  voice  invariably  confirmed  and  corroborated 
by  some  external  sign  ?  Moses  first  sees  the  bush  burning  with- 
out being  consumed,  hears  an  audible  voice,  witnesses  a  number 
of  miracles,  and  then,  and  not  until  then,  he  goes  to  Israel  and 
to  Pharaoh,  and  says,  "  Thus  saitli  the  Lord."  Paul  speaks  of  the 
signs  of  an  apostle.  These  were  doubtless  signs  to  tlie  apostle 
himself  as  much  as  to  otliers.  It  seems  perfectly  safe  to  say  that 
in  every  case  wliere  the  Holy  Spirit  spoke,  in  this  special  way,  to 
one  or  by  one,  his  voice  was  either  preceded,  accompanied  or  fol- 
lowed by  miraculous  evidence  addressed  to  the  senses.  It  seems 
safe  to  say,  that  wherever  communication  is  opened  <Ie  novo  be- 
tween God  and  a  man  there  is  a  necessity  for  miracles.  As  soon 
as  we  come  into  possession  of  God's  written  word  this  necessity  in 
a  manner  ceases;  for  in  the  word  itself  we  have  the  safeguard 
we  need.  By  it  we  can  try  the  spirits  whether  they  be  of  God. 
It  may  be  granted,  then,  that  the  Spirit  who  gave  the  word  is  able 
to  bear  such  testimony  to  it  as  his  word  as  will  leave  no  sliadow 
of  doubt  upon  the  mind.  The  question  is  not  wliat  the  Spirit  v.-aw 
do,  but  what  he  does.  It  would  be  preposterous  to  assert  that,  in 
addition  to  witnessing  to  the  word  in  the  heart,  he  works  miracles 
in  order  to  assure  men  of  the  canonicity  of  this,  that  or  the  other 
book  of  Scripture.  But  without  these  miracles,  how  can  men  be 
assured  that  they  are  not  following  an  igtiis  fatuusf  Let  us  sup- 
pose that  some  one  has  deposited  five  thousand  dollars  in  bank  to 
the  credit  of  Mr,  A.  B,,  an  individual  not  personally  known  to  any 
of  the  oflBcials  of  the  bank.  Shortly  after  it  has  l)ecn  deposited,  in 
steps  a  man,  wlio  draws  a  clieck  in  these  terms:  "  Pay  to  self  or 


48  TETE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

order,"  and  signs  it  "A.  B."  He  steps  up  to  the  desk  and  passes 
his  paper  over  to  the  cashier.  The  cashier,  of  course,  will  wish  the 
signature  identified.  Suppose,  now,  the  man  who  has  just  drawn 
the  check  says,  "  I  will  identify  it."  Would  not  the  cashier  very 
promptly  respond,  "  But,  my  dear  sir,  who  will  identify  you  ? "  We 
are  told  by  the  advocates  of  this  theory  that  the  Spirit  of  God  will 
identify  his  own  writings.  But,  we  make  bold  to  ask,  who  will 
identify  the  one  claiming  to  be  the  Spirit  of  God  ?  Reason  de- 
mands that  when  we  have  so  much  at  stake  we  should  only  act 
under  the  protection  of  every  possible  safeguard.  The  Scriptures 
recognize  and  ratify  this  demand ;  but  the  theory  we  are  consid- 
ering utterly  ignores  it.  To  all  intents  and  purposes  it  makes  the 
whole  Bible,  and  each  part  of  it,  a  new  revelation  to  eacli  indi- 
vidual. The  authority  of  this  stupendous  revelation  rests  solely 
upon  a  subjective  impression,  for  the  Holy  Spirit  no  longer  ac- 
companies the  word  with  "  signs  and  wonders  following."  The 
fruit  of  such  pernicious  doctrine  it  is  easy  to  see. 

It  may  be  proper  to  add  at  this  point,  that  the  writer  is  not 
alone  in  seeing  the  virus  of  mysticism  in  this  theory.  Long  ago 
the  venerable  Dr.  Archibald  Alexander  uttered  his  warning 
against  even  that  modified  form  of  the  theory  which  appears  in 
the  Galilean  Confession,  and  based  that  warning  upon  the  inl^er- 
ent  tendency  of  the  theory  to  the  errors  of  mysticism.  Later,  this 
is  the  view  of  the  theory  which  has  arrested  the  attention  of 
the  clear  and  vigorous  mind  of  Francis  L.  Patton,  president  of 
Princeton  College,  who  says  of  it :  "  It  does  not  tend  in  the 
slightest  degree  to  reconcile  us  to  these  opinions  to  say  that  the 
Reformers  entertained  them.  It  would  not  be  strange  if,  in  their 
opposition  to  the  claims  of  the  church  of  Rome,  they  went  to  the 
opposite  extreme  and  were  in  danger  of  falling  into  the  errors  of 
the  mystics." 

It  has  been  alleged,  however,  that  the  theory  is  clearly  dis- 
tinguished from  mysticism  and  guarded  against  error  from  that 
quarter  by  the  fact  that  the  inward  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  delivered  "  by  and  with  the  particular  writing  or  part  of  writ- 
ing" which  happens  to  l)e  under  investigation. 

{a.)  My  first  comment  upon  this  position  is,  that  its  plausibility 


A  RECFINTLY  PKOP(»SEn   TKST  OF  CANOMCII'V.  49 

lies  wildly  in  the  fact  that  the  languas^e  used  is  similar  in  xmiul 
to  language  used  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  in  a  materially  differ- 
ent connection  and  with  a  totally  different  sense.  The  advocates  of 
this  theory  will  find  that  the  mere  form  of  sound  words  will  fail  to 
hide  its  nakedness  and  ugliness  from  thoughtful  minds. 

(h.)  My  next  comment  is,  that  the  terms  used,  when  viewed  in 
the  coimection  in  which  they  are  used,  are  confused  and  confusjui;. 
They  convey  no  very  distinct  idea  of  any  kind.  Let  it  he  re- 
membered that  the  question  to  be  decided  is:  Is  this  particidar 
writing  inspired?  And  we  are  told  that  the  Spirit  establishes  its 
inspiration  by  testifying  "by  and  with"  the  writing  itself.  But 
if  the  writing  is  the  channel  through  which  the  testimoii}'  of  the 
Spirit  is  delivered,  then  surely  it  would  seem  to  be  necessarv  in 
some  way  to  connect  the  channel  tln-ough  which  the  testimonv 
comes  with  the  source  from  which  the  testimony  is  said  to  pro- 
ceed. If  A.  B.,  being  unable  to  attend  court,  sends  a  written  de- 
position, before  it  can  be  received  in  evidence  the  court  must  be 
certified  that  it  proceeds  from  A.  B.  If  it  l)e  said  that  A.  B.  is 
surely  competent  to  certify  that  a  certain  document  proceeded 
from  him  as  its  author,  this  is  granted.  But  observe,  this  impHes 
that  A.  B.  himself  is  present  and  has  been  duly  identified.  If  so, 
then  the  question  might  arise,  why  testify  by  and  with  the  writing 
when  he  is  on  hand  to  speak  for  himself  to  all  points  mentioned 
in  the  document?  Moreover,  let  it  be  carefully  observed  tiiat  in 
this  case  we  would  not  have  two  independent  converging  mutually 
corroborative  lines  of  testimony  resulting  in  cumulative  evidence, 
but  a  mere  repetition  of  testimony. 

(c.)  But  we  are  told,  i)y  way  of  explaining  the  terms,  that  "  It 
is  one  thing  to  say  that  the  Spirit  teacheth  us  by  the  Scripture, 
and  anotlier  thing  to  pretend  the  Spirit's  teaching  l)esides,  beyond, 
or  contrary  to  the  Scripture;  the  one  is  a  divine  truth,  the  other 
is  vile  ?nofiia>iii</jiy 

Upon  this  I  remark  first,  that  it  is  ditKcult  to  see  how  the 
Spirit  can  teach  us  by  the  Scripture  before  we  are  in  possession  of 
the  Scripture.  Tiie  very  core  of  onr  inquiry  is,  Is  this  writing 
Scripture?  Until  this  is  settled  tiie  Holy  Spirit  has  no  Scrijiture 
with  which  to  teach  us  anything.      In  a  word,  tlie  naked  testimony 

4 


50  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

of  the  voice  claiminoj  to  be  the  voice  of  the  Spirit  must  establish 
the  fact  that  certain  writings  are  Scripture  before  the  Spirit  is  in 
a  position  to  teach  anything  by  the  Scripture;  otherwise  he  has 
no  Scripture  by  wliich  to  teach. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  if  those  who  offer  this  explanation 
mean  that  the  Spirit  does  not  deliver  liis  testimony  apart  from,  or 
independently  of,  the  particular  writing  or  part  of  writing  which 
happens  to  l)e  under  examination,  then  I  remark  that  they  have 
deceived  themselves  with  a  bald  and  meaningless  truism.  For,  as 
a  matter  of  course,  if  the  Spirit  testifies  to  a  writing,  then  the  writ- 
ing itself  must  be  before  tlie  eye  of  the  l)ody  or  that  of  the  mind. 
And  if  they  mean  that  he  testifies  simply  and  solely  by  the  written 
words  themselves  as  opposed  to  a  voice,  or  vision,  or  mere  inward 
impression,  however  produced,  then  I  reply  that  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  testifying  at  all.  They  have  in 
effect  fallen  back  upon  the  internal  evidence  presented  by  the 
writing  itself,  which  evidence  they  formerly  rejected.  The  fact 
is  that,  let  them  twist  and  squirm  as  tliey  may,  let  them  use  lan- 
guage as  a  means  of  concealing  their  meaning  as  much  as  they  may, 
they  will  after  all  find  themselves  compelled  to  rest,  even  by  their 
own  showing,  under  the  charge  of  "vile  inontaniam.^'' 

3.  But,  again,  it  will  help  us  to  form  a  just  estimate  of  this 
theory  if  we  consider  briefly  some  of  the  consequences  which 
naturally  and  necessarily  flow  from  it.  Let  it  be  remembered, 
then,  that  according  to  the  doctrine  we  are  considering,  the  ques- 
tion of  origin,  or  authorship,  is  wholly  distinct  from  that  of 
canonicity.  The  fact  that  the  apostolic  authorship  of  a  writing  is 
proved  by  a  chain  of  unimpeachable  historical  witnesses  settles 
nothing.  It  is,  therefore,  not  only  needless,  but  useless,  to  asso- 
<;iate  any  book  by  a  chain  of  historical  evidences  with  Ciirist  or 
the  apostles.  Their  imprimatur  is  worthless.  It  may  secure  for 
a  writing  reverent  esteem,  but  can  invest  it  with  no  authority.  A 
book  having  no  connection  whatever  with  the  authorized  and  in- 
spired founders  and  expounders  of  the  Christian  system  may  never- 
theless become  a  rule  of  faith  and  life  to  those  living  under  that 
system.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  a  book  proved  by  the  most  un- 
•questionable  evidence  to  have  proceeded  from  John  or  Paul,  and 


A  RECENTLY  PROPOSED  TK8T  OF  CANONICrrr  51 

claiming  upon  its  face  to  he  a  rule  of  faith  and  life,  has  not  neces- 
sarily any  authority  wliatever.  If  this  be  denied,  it  can  only  be 
upon  the  ground  that  tlie  Holy  Spirit  will  in  every  such  case  as 
that  first  mentioned  refuse  to  testify  by  and  with  the  writing  in 
the  heart  of  the  believer,  and  in  every  sucl:  case  as  last-mentioned, 
will  invariably  testify  by  .and  with  the  writing.  But  to  say  this 
is  simply  to  surrender  the  theory.  If,  on  the  contrary,  the  conse- 
quence be  admitted,  then  the  theory  may  l)e  sulgected  to  a  simple 
and  decisive  test.  Doubtless  it  was  just  as  true  for  the  Galatians 
as  it  is  for  us  that  authorship  could  not  determine  canonicity.  Let 
us  ask,  then,  when  Paul's  letter  came  to  them  duly  attested,  did  it, 
or  did  it  not,  demand  and  deserve  their  immediate  acceptance  and 
obedience  ?  Did  they  have  to  wait  for  a  special,  direct,  superna- 
tural, miraculous  confirmation  of  its  autliority  l)y  the  Holy  Spirit? 
If  Paul's  name  as  an  inspired  apostle  was  a  sufficient  guarantee  of 
the  canonicity  of  the  epistle  in  the  first  instance,  then  how  can  ' 
the  mere  lapse  of  time  have  affected  its  sufficiency  as  a  guarantee' 
to  us  ? 

But  further,  in  this  same  connection,  let  it  be  remembered, 
that  according  to  the  view  we  are  examining  there  is  no  process 
by  which  the  canonicity  of  a  writing  as  a  whole  can  be  estab- 
lished. So  jealous  are  its  advocates  for  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment, and  withal  so  humble  and  devout  is  their  temper  of  mind, 
that  they  must  l)e  certified  l)y  the  Holy  Spirit  of  the  canonicity, 
not  of  the  writing  as  a  whole  merely,  but  also  of  its  several  parts. 
They  do  not  believe  in  the  inerrancy  of  the  very  autograph  which 
came  from  the  hands  of  the  apostles.  Hence  they  need  a  special 
revelation  in  connection  with  each  paragraph  and  every  sentence. 
They  do  not  believe  in  verbal  inspiration.  Hence  the  Holy  Spirit 
must  disentangle  the  thought  from  the  words,  and  certify  to  them 
that  such  and  such  disembodied  thoughts,  so  to  speak,  were  de- 
signed when  the  writer  used  such  and  such  words.  Let  us  see, 
then,  whereunto  this  doctrine  if  athuitted  must  grow.  Here  we 
have  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  It  is  all  from  «>no  hand.  It 
claims  to  be  sanctioned  in  every  i)art  by  one  authority.  But,  not- 
withstanding these  facts,  it  would  be  entirely  possible  upon  this 
theory  that  the   Holy  Spirit  might  certify  chapters  i.-viii.,  and 


52  THE  PRESBITERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

decline  to  certify  chapter  ix.  If  this  is  denied,  it  is  hard  to  see 
upon  what  ground.  It  cannot  be  upon  the  ground  that  tlie  Holy 
Spirit  will  always  bear  witness  by  and  vvitli  what  he  himself  has 
in  the  first  instance  inspired ;  because  this  assumes  that  tliis 
chapter  was  in  the  first  instance  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
This,  however,  is  the  point  in  question.  But  if  it  be  admitted 
that  chapter  ix.  is  not  canonical,  or  might  not  receive  the  attesta- 
tion of  the  Spirit,  then  observe  what  follows.  Paul  unquestion- 
ably regarded  himself  as  speaking  under  the  inspiration  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  ninth  chapter  as  truly  as  in  chapters  i.-viii.  But  he 
was  mistaken,  or  may  have  been  mistaken.  And  if  he  may  have 
been  mistaken  in  regard  to  the  ninth  chapter,  why  may  he  not 
have  been  mistaken  in  regard  to  chapters  i.-viii.  ?  And  if  he  was, 
or  may  have  been,  mistaken,  notwithstanding  all  the  evidence  tliat 
he  had  that  he  was  truly  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit,  what 
guarantee  can  we  have  that  we  are  not  ujistaken  when  we  fancy 
we  hear  the  voice  of  the  Spirit  in  our  hearts  bearing  witness  by 
and  with  a  particular  wi-iting,  or  part  of  writing  ?  This  theory  is 
a  road  losing  itself  in  intellectual  quagmires  and  swamps,  where 
the  traveller  may  temporarily  rejoice  in  the  light  of  a  jack-a- 
lantern,  but  must  eventually  land  in  a  bog. 

4.  But  the  radical  and  revolutionary  character  of  the  theory 
will  probably  appear  most  clearly  when  it  is  shown  that  it  invali- 
dates the  miraculous  and  historical  evidence  upon  which  the  Chris- 
tian system  has  l)een  supposed  to  rest.  Let  us  examine  this  alle- 
gation. 

It  has  been  the  boast  of  a  long  line  of  Christian  apologists  that 
it  is  a  distinguishing  feature  and  a  distinguishing  excellency  of 
Christianity,  as  contrasted  with  all  other  religions,  that  every  one 
of  its  leading  doctrines  is  so  rooted  in  a  historical  fact  that  to  es- 
tablish the  fact  is  to  estal)lish  the  doctrine.  Thus,  given  the  facts 
of  Christ's  life,  and  we  have  of  necessity  the  doctrine  of  the  incar- 
nation ;  given  the  facts  of  his  death,  and  we  have  of  necessity  the 
doctrine  of  the  atonement;  given  the  fact  of  his  resurrection,  and 
we  have  the  doctrines  of  his  divinity  and  of  the  trinity.  Now,  it 
will  be  observed,  that  the  inspiration  of  the  writings  of  the  apostles, 
for  instance,  is  as  much  a  doctrine  of  Scripture  and  of  the  Chris- 


A  RECENTLY  PKOPOSED  TEST  OF  CANONICITY.  53 

tinn  bystuin  as  any  of  those  just  named.  What,  then,  are  the  his- 
torical facts  in  wliicli  this  doctrine  roots  itself?  The  answer  ordi- 
narily has  been,  the  fact  that  those  who  wrote  them  and  claimed 
for  tliem  inspiration  did  works  "  which  no  man  could  do  except 
God  were  with  him."  The  inspiration  of  tlie  writings,  therefore, 
follows  as  a  necessary  inference  from  the  inspiration  of  the  writers ; 
and  that,  in  turn,  follows  necessarily  from  the  miracles  they 
wrought.  Paul's  epistles  rest  their  authority  upon  his  authority 
as  an  apostle,  and  this,  in  turn,  rests  upon  the  signs  of  an  apostle 
which  he  wrought  wherever  he  went.  If,  then,  neither  canonicity 
nor  inspiration  can  he  established  b^'  external  evidence,  it  nuist  be 
either  because  we  have  no  sntficient,  satisfactory  historical  evi- 
dence coimecting  these  writings  with  the  authorized  and  inspired 
founders  and  expounders  of  the  Christian  system ;  or  because  there 
is  no  sufficient  evidence  that  the  writers  did  work  miracjes;  or 
because  miracles  do  not  furnish  satisfactory  evidence  of  a  divine 
commission.  To  accept  either  of  the  foruier  alternatives  is  to 
make  shipwreck  of  the  Christian  system,  by  asserting  that  the 
facts  upon  which  it  professes  to  rest  are  incapable  of  being  veri- 
fied. To  accept  the  last  alternative  is  to  make  shipwreck  of  it 
again,  by  asserting  that,  granting  the  facts,  they  furnish  no  ground 
for  the  doctrines  of  the  system.  In  a  word,  if  it  be  impossible  to 
establish  the  inspiration  of  a  writing  by  any  kind  or  amount  of 
external  evidence,  then  it  is  impossible  to  establish  the  inspiration 
either  of  a  writing  or  a  writer  by  miracles,  for  they  unquestion- 
ably fall  in  the  category  of  external  evidence. 

There  are  other  points  in  coimection  with  the  theory  we  have 
been  considering  which  might  be  noted,  l)ut  which  must  be  passed 
by  in  order  that  we  may  glance  at  the  attempt  that  has  been  made 
to  foist  it  upon  the  Confession  of  Faith. 

This  attempt  derives  all  of  its  plausil»ility  from  the  mere  sound 
of  the  language  used  by  the  Confession,  in  utter  disregard  of  its 
connection  and  manifest  sense.  The  language  referred  to  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "Yet,  notwithstanding  our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of 
the  infallil)le  truth  and  divine  authority  thereof,''  i.  e.,  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, "  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  bearing  wit- 
ness by  and  witli  tlie  word  in  our  hearts."     Does  the  Confession 


54:  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  QUARTERLY. 

then  commit  itself  to  the  doctrine  that  the  canonicity  of  a  writing 
cannot  be  established  by  any  kind  or  amount  of  external  evidence? 
Does  it  teach  that  the  ultimate  test  of  canonicity  is  the  testimony  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  by  and  with  the  particular  writing  or  part  of  writ- 
ing which  happens  to  be  under  consideration?  Not  at  all.  The 
question  of  canonicity,  properly  speaking,  was  not  before  the  minds 
of  the  framers  of  the  Confession  when  they  wrote  these  words, 
Canonicity  is  an  intrinsic  quality  of  certain  writings.  It  belongs 
to  them,  whether  those  to  whom  they  come  will  hear  or  whether 
they  will  forbear.  Our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infal- 
lible truth  and  divine  authority  of  a  writing,  however  much  it  may 
affect  our  conduct  and  concern  our  welfare  or  our  woe,  has  nothing 
to  do  with  its  canonicity.  This,  as  the  Confession  says  in  the  para- 
graph just  preceding  tliat  from  which  the  words  above  quoted 
were  taken,  depends  upon  the  authority  with  which  God  has  in- 
vested it.  The  question  as  to  wliether  God  has  or  has  not  in- 
vested a  writing  with  authority  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  life  is  by  no 
means  identical  with  the  question,  How  do  men  come  to  a  full 
persuasion  of  the  infallible  truth  and  divine  authority  of  this  rule  ? 
It  is  a  question  which  rests  upon  its  own  proper  and  independent 
evidence :  evidence  which  would  hold  were  all  men  to  refuse  to 
recognize  the  infallible  truth  and  divine  authority  of  the  rule; 
evidence  which  would  compel  the  assent  of  the  understanding, 
and  bring  the  conscience  under  obligations,  even  though  it  failed 
to  secure  the  confidence  of  a  corrupt  heart  and  the  obedience  of  a 
^rebellious  will.  Now,  any  one  who  will  read  the  Confession  care- 
fully will  find  that  it  is  dealing,  not  with  a  question  of  Christian 
evidences,  but  with  a  question  of  Christian  experience;  not  with 
the  question.  What  is  there  to  show  that  this  writing  has  been  in- 
vested by  God  with  authority  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  life?  but, 
How  is  its  acceptance  at  the  hands  of  man  secured?  To  this  the 
answer  is,  its  full  and  complete  acceptance  is  only  secured  by  an 
inward  operation  of  the  Spirit,  persuading  and  enabling  the  heart 
and  will  to  yield  to  the  overwhelming  external  evidence  furnished 
,  by  the  origin  and  contents  of  the  books.  The  case  may  be  illus- 
itrated  by  what  we  speak  of  as  historical  and  saving  faith.  Surely 
no  one  will  make  Christ's  claims  as  prophet,  priest  and  king  de- 


A  KECENTLY  PROPOSED  TEST  OF  CANONICITY.  55 

pend  upon  "the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  These  claims 
rest  upon  their  own  proper  evidence.  This  evidence  may,  and  fre- 
quently does,  compel  the  assent  of  the  understanding,  even  when 
the  person  so  convinced  refuses  to  l)elieve  with  the  heart.  How 
great  a  perversion  would  it  be  of  the  teachings  of  the  Confession 
to  say  that,  because  it  declares  that  "  faith  is  a  saving  grace,"  there- 
fore it  teaches  that  the  validity  of  Christ's  claims  rests  upon  an 
inward  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  equally  perverse  to 
wrest  the  language  we  have  been  considering  into  meaning  that 
the  only  evidence  of  the  canonicity  of  a  writing  is  the  testimony 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  and  with  it  in  the  heart. 

But  it  is  time  to  leave  this  theory.  Taking  a  parting  glance 
at  it  as  we  turn  away,  we  find  that  its  claims  are  in  curious  con- 
trast with  its  real  character.  For  instance,  it  poses  as  the  perse- 
cuted and  disowned  heir  of  our  Puritan  fathers  and  the  Reformers. 
Doubtless,  could  they  rise  from  their  graves,  they  would  be  sur- 
prised at  the  company  this  descendant  of  theirs  is  keeping.  It 
claims  to  do  special  honor  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  yet  it  opens  the 
door  of  the  heart  for  every  lying  spirit  that  may  (;hoose  l)lasphem- 
ously  to  impersonate  him.  It  pretends  to  stand  alone  in  recogniz- 
ing the  claims  of  the  reason  and  religious  feelings.  But  it  de- 
prives the  former  of  its  primary,  proper,  and  well-nigh  sole  func- 
tion in  matters  of  religion,  by  refusing  to  permit  it  to  sift  the  his- 
tori(!al  evidences  of  Christianity,  and  making  it  the  dupe  of  every 
inner  voice  or  lijjht  which  human  fanaticism  or  Satanic;  cutmiui' 
may  ascribe  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  at  the  same  time  it  deprives 
the  religious  feelings  of  their  only  norm  and  safeguard,  by  virtu- 
ally making  them  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  claims  of  the  w<u-d. 
It  professes  to  give  the  only  ground  for  certitude  in  regard  to  tiie 
canon,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  invests  every  book  and  every  para- 
graph of  Scripture,  from  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  to  the  twenty- 
second  chapter  of  Revelation,  in  uncertainty.  It  professes  to  be  the 
great  l)ulwark  and  protection  of  the  Cliristian  system,  when,  in  fact, 
it  saps  the  system  at  its  foundations,  by  calling  into  (jucstion  the 
validity  of  the  liistorical  and  miraculous  testin)ony  upon  which  it 
rests,  and  8ul)Stitnting  for  these  a  line  of  evidence  which  at  best  must, 
in  the  end,  rank  it,  among  intelligent  men,  along  with  the  systems  of 
Swedenborg  and  Joe  Smith.  Wim.iam  M.^oPukktkrs. 


Date  Due 

,MiliLT^ 

OtS-  *i 

■ 

.\>^ 

■<  JT 

^    *yr      ;:,•• 

""■.Ailt^ 

1 

iiliiiiSil 


